§ MR. MONTAGU (Tower Hamlets, Whitechapel)I beg to ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether his attention has been called to the decision in the case of Weguellin v. Wayall, 14 Queen's Bench Division, 838, restricting the exemption of business premises from Inhabited House Duty to cases where only one caretaker is kept, irrespective of the size of the premises, and that this decision prevents bankers and others who have a watchman from employing a caretaker unless they pay the duty on the entire premises, thus injuriously affecting porters and messengers who, but for this restriction, would be employed also as caretakers in large buildings in the City of London; and whether the Government will take steps to 1618 remedy this grievance, either by exempting business premises entirely, or by making the duty payable only on the value of such part of the premises as may be occupied by the caretakers?
§ THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUER (Mr. GOSCHEN, St. George's, Hanover Square)In the case referred to, the Court decided that business premises in charge of a caretaker who has dwelling with her a son—in independent employment—a daughter, and a servant were not within the exemption in favour of such premises dwelt in by a caretaker of the nature of a menial servant. But in practice no objection is raised by the Board of Inland Revenue in cases where the Local Commissioners give relief where two caretakers are employed, provided they are both menial servants, nor in cases where the caretaker has residing with him members of his family who are dependent on him for protection and support. No legislation is necessary on the subject.